https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2283541 Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |182235 (FE-Legal) CC| |code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #1 from Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- The actual license text[1] says, ---- This software is distributed under the Public Domain. Since it is not enough anymore to tell people: 'hey, just do with it whatever you like to do', you can consider this software being distributed under the CC0 Public Domain Dedication (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode.txt). In cases, where the law prohibits the recognition of Public Domain software, this software can be licensed under the zlib license as stated below: Copyright (C) 2012-2020 Marcus von Appen <marcus@xxxxxxxxxxxx> This software is provided 'as-is', without any express or implied warranty. In no event will the authors be held liable for any damages arising from the use of this software. Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any purpose, including commercial applications, and to alter it and redistribute it freely, subject to the following restrictions: 1. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented; you must not claim that you wrote the original software. If you use this software in a product, an acknowledgement in the product documentation would be appreciated but is not required. 2. Altered source versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not be misrepresented as being the original software. 3. This notice may not be removed or altered from any source distribution. [… further notes about files with other licenses in the examples and documentation, not reproduced here …] ---- Ignoring for now the mentioned example and documentation files, this appears much more complicated than LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain. The "Public Domain" status seems conflated with the CC0-1.0 license, and it is not clear that there exists a public-domain dedication without the CC0-1.0 terms – which are not allowed for code in Fedora. The zlib license option is another wrinkle. This would seem to provide an outlet for the CC0-1.0 problem, but the license text only says that zlib can be used “in cases, where the law prohibits the recognition of Public Domain software,” which is quite different from an “at your option” clause. The license here needs legal review, at best, and it looks to me like it will not turn out to be acceptable for Fedora. [1] https://github.com/py-sdl/py-sdl2/blob/rel_0_9_7/doc/copying.rst Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=182235 [Bug 182235] Fedora Legal Tracker -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2283541 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202283541%23c1 -- _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
